Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Cameron

• Decision Date: 25 August 1966
• Docket Number: No. H--22,H--22
• Citation: 190 So.2d 34
• Parties: ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Melvin S. CAMERON, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 34

190 So.2d 34

ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. Melvin S. CAMERON, Appellee.

No. H--22.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 25, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1966.

William H. Maness, Jacksonville, for appellant.

Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, Sands & D'Aiuto, Jacksonville, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment rendered upon a jury verdict in favor of the appellee herein.

This action was brought under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, under which Act Congress has, in effect, to say the least, broadened the scope of liability of the Railroad while at the same time narrowing the requisite proof of negligence to sustain recovery by an employee of the Railroad.

The facts are, appellee Cameron was an employee of appellant and was performing his duties as a trainman at the time of his accident which constitutes the basis for this action. Appellant serviced Blackshear Manufacturing Company at Blackshear, Georgia. The track of appellant was so close to the warehouse or loading platform of said Blackshear Manufacturing Company that it necessitated the trainmen to climb a ladder attached to said building to reach the loading platform and from there attend to the coupling of freight cars. The ladder being built straight up and with very little 'toe hold', it was necessary for the employee using the ladder to make use of a wire rope as a handhold in ascending or descending said ladder. There was no controversy over the fact that it was necessary to use the ladder and rope and the platform to carry out the duties of the trainman, who in this case is the appellee herein. On the night in question, the appellee and two other men had used the ladder and wire rope in ascending the ladder to the warehouse platform without incident. When the appellee started to get down off the platform, by climbing down the ladder, holding onto the wire rope, the rope broke or pulled loose from the building, causing the appellee to fall several feet backwards across the railroad track, injuring himself, which is the basis for this cause of action.

A motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, incorporating in said motion a further motion to dismiss the complaint, without prejudice, under the doctrine of forum non-conveniens was filed. The motion was denied as to both grounds thereof and the cause proceeded to trial, culminating in a verdict by the jury in favor of the appellee, plaintiff below, in the amount of $109,814.00, upon which judgment was entered, after the trial court had denied defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict and in the alternative, for a new trial. Hence this appeal.

The first point on appeal raised by the appellant is whether or not the court erred in not granting appellant's motion to dismiss the complaint under the doctrine of forum non-conveniens.

Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, the injured railroad worker is permitted to sue in any forum, where the railroad does business. The application of the doctrine of forum non-conveniens is discretionary on the part of the trial judge, ¹ and the question to be decided by the reviewing court on appeal, is whether there was a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge. In the case sub judice, it appears that the expert witnesses involved here, the Railroad Company's physician to whom the appellant sent the appellee for examination and treatment, as well as appellee's own physician, were residents of Jacksonville, Duval County, which was eighty miles from Blackshear, Georgia, where the accident occurred. The attorneys involved, were practitioners in Duval County. So, it appears that the 'expensive' witnesses for both parties were more accessible in Duval County without extra costs and inconvenience to specialized people. The site and condition of the building where the accident occurred, could be shown by pictures without much trouble or costs. It is not shown that the other witnesses could not easily appear in Duval County for the trial, and therefore, we find no abuse of discretion of the trial court in denying the motion to dismiss on this ground. ²

We next come to the point of whether the complaint stated a cause of action. We think the complaint alleges sufficient facts to describe the place of work to give rise to a jury question as to whether it constituted a safe place for an employee to work; also, sufficient allegations, which if proven, upon which a jury could base a sensible verdict.

Point three raised in the briefs by each party, is, in substance, whether or not there was sufficient evidence to establish negligence on the part of the Railroad and upon which a jury could properly base a finding. We think there is enough evidence from which the jury might, as a group of reasonable men, find negligence on the part of the Railroad in not providing a safe place to work, as well as to the appliances or instrumentalities used in connection with the duties of the employee Cameron, such as the type...